The Green Papers Commentary
 

2008 VICE-PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE
Thursday 2 October 2008

Saturday, October 4, 2008

by Richard E. Berg-Andersson
TheGreenPapers.com Staff


2008 VICE-PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

Thursday 2 October 2008

Location: Washington University-- St. Louis, Missouri

Subject: various Foreign and Domestic Policy issues (this being the only Vice-Presidential Debate of this election campaign)

Moderator: Gwen Ifill- of the Public Broadcasting System's News Hour and Washington Week.

Format: moderator asking a "lead question" of each candidate; 1 1/2 response by the candidate to whom the question is directed, followed by a 1 1/2 minute response by the other candidate; "open discussion" of around 2 minutes (give or take) thereafter. Debate to last not all that longer than 90 minutes all told.

Scoring for 'The Green Papers' by RICHARD E. BERG-ANDERSSON TheGreenPapers.com Staff

Explanation of the SCORING SYSTEM used by 'The Green Papers' for the 2008 Presidential and Vice-Presidential Debates


ROUND 1

Lead question asked of Senator Biden: The House of Representatives this week... a big bailout bill... didn't pass it; the Senate decided to pass it and the House is wrestling with it still tonight: as America watches these things happen on Capitol Hill,... was this the worst of Washington or the best of Washington that we saw play out?

Biden responds: It's neither the best or worst of Washington but it's evidence of the fact that the economic policies of the last 8 years have been the worst economic policies we've ever had: as a consequence, you've seen what's happened on Wall Street. If you need any more proof positive of how bad the economic theories have been, this excessive deregulation- the failure to oversee what was going on, letting Wall Street run wild- I don't think you needed any more evidence than what you see now. So... Democrats and Republicans have been put in a very difficult spot. But Barack Obama laid out four basic criteria for any kind of rescue plan here:

He, first of all, said there has to be oversight... He, secondly, said you have to focus on homeowners and folks on Main Street; thirdly, he said that you have to treat the taxpayers like investors in this case and, lastly, what you have to do is make sure that CEOs don't benefit from this, because this could end up- in the long run- people making money off of this rescue plan... We're going to focus on the middle class, because it's -- when the middle class is growing, the economy grows and everybody does well, not just focus on the wealthy and corporate America.

Palin responds: I think a good barometer here- as we try to figure out has this been a good time or a bad time in America's economy- is go to a kid's soccer game on Saturday, and turn to any parent there on the sideline and ask them, 'How are you feeling about the economy?': and, I'll bet you, you're going to hear some fear in that parent's voice- fear regarding the few investments that some of us have in the stock market... fear about how are we going to afford to send our kids to college; a fear- as small business owners, perhaps- how we're going to borrow any money to increase inventory or hire more people. The barometer there, I think, is going to be resounding that our economy is hurting and the Federal Government has not provided the sound oversight that we need and that we deserve, and we need reform to that end.

Now, John McCain thankfully has been one representing reform: two years ago, remember, it was John McCain who pushed so hard with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform measures- he sounded that warning bell. People in the Senate with him- his colleagues- didn't want to listen to him and wouldn't go towards that reform that was needed then. I think that the alarm has been heard, though, and there will be that greater oversight- again, thanks to John McCain's bipartisan efforts that he was so instrumental in bringing folks together over this past week, even suspending his own campaign to make sure he was putting excessive politics aside and putting the country first.

Open discussion...

Moderator: Senator Biden: how- as Vice President- would you work to shrink this gap of polarization which has sprung up in Washington, which you both have spoken about here tonight?

Biden: Well, that's what I've done my whole career... on very, very controversial issues: from dealing with violence against women; to putting 100,000 police officers on the street; to trying to get something done about the genocide that was going on in Bosnia and I have been able to reach across the aisle: I think it's fair to say that I have almost as many friends on the Republican side of the aisle as I do the Democratic side of the aisle... [i]t was two Mondays ago, John McCain said at 9 o'clock in the morning that the fundamentals of the economy were strong: two weeks before that, he said we've made great economic progress under George Bush's policies.

9 o'clock, the economy was strong; 11 o'clock that same day, two Mondays ago, John McCain said that we have an economic crisis: that doesn't make John McCain a bad guy but it does point out he's out of touch. Those folks on the sidelines knew that two months ago.

Palin: John McCain, in referring to the fundamentals of our economy being strong, he was talking to- and he was talking about- the American workforce and the American workforce is the greatest in this world, with the ingenuity and the work ethic that is just entrenched in our workforce: that's a positive, that's encouragement- and that's what John McCain meant...

Now, Barack Obama, of course, he's pretty much only voted along his Party lines: in fact, 96 percent of his votes have been solely along Party lines- not having that proof for the American People to know that his commitment, too, is... put the partisanship- put the special interests- aside and get down to getting business done for the people of America. We're tired of the old politics as usual and that's why, with all due respect, I do respect your years in the U.S. Senate but I think Americans are craving something new and different and that new energy and that new commitment that's going to come with reform.

I think that's why we need to send the maverick from the Senate and put him in the White House, and I'm happy to join him there.

Moderator: Governor, Senator: neither of you really answered that last question about what you would do as Vice President: I'm going to come back to that throughout the evening to try to see if we can look forward as well.

Scoring-- Round 1: A tough one to score: both vice-presidential candidates put forth their respective views very effectively in their opening responses to the question. Governor Palin eked out a victory in this first round- not with her spirited defense of Senator McCain's "the economy is strong" statement (one that, as even I said on this website, was at least somewhat embarrassing in the wake of the ongoing financial crisis), but with her well scoring Senator Obama's voting record in what was obviously something of a parodying of the Democrats' oft-stated charge that John McCain voted with President Bush more than 95% of the time (Palin here pointing out that Obama voted with his own Party just as often). Palin 10, Biden 9.


ROUND 2

Lead question asked of Governor Palin: The next question is to talk about the subprime lending meltdown: who do you think was at fault?... Was it the greedy lenders? Was it the risky homebuyers who shouldn't have been buying a home in the first place? And what should you be doing about it?

Palin responds: Darn right it was the predator lenders- who tried to talk Americans into thinking that it was smart to buy a $300,000 house if we could only afford a $100,000 house: there was deception there and there was greed and there is corruption on Wall Street. And we need to stop that. Again, John McCain and I- that commitment that we have made and we're going to follow through on that: getting rid of that corruption.

One thing that Americans can do at this time also, though, is: let's commit ourselves just everyday American people- Joe Six Pack, hockey moms across the nation- I think we need to band together and say 'never again!': never will we be exploited and taken advantage of again by those who are managing our money and loaning us these dollars. We need to make sure that we demand from the Federal Government strict oversight of those entities in charge of our investments and our savings and we need also to not get ourselves in debt. Let's do what our parents told us before we probably even got that first credit card: don't live outside of our means. We need to make sure that as individuals we're taking personal responsibility through all of this: it's not the American People's fault that the economy is hurting like it is but we have an opportunity to learn a heck of a lot of good lessons through this and say 'never again will we be taken advantage of'.

Biden responds: Well... two years ago, Barack Obama warned about the subprime mortgage crisis: John McCain said- shortly after that, in December- he was surprised there was a subprime mortgage problem. John McCain- while Barack Obama was warning about what we had to do- was literally giving an interview to The Wall Street Journal saying that I'm always for cutting regulations. We let Wall Street run wild...

So what you had is you had overwhelming "deregulation." You had actually the belief that Wall Street could self-regulate itself and, while Barack Obama was talking about reinstating those regulations, John- on 20 different occasions in the previous year and a half- called for more deregulation: as a matter of fact, John recently wrote an article in a major magazine saying that he wants to do for the health care industry- deregulate it and let the free market move- like he did for the banking industry.

So deregulation was the promise and- guess what?- those people who say 'don't go into debt', they can barely pay to fill up their gas tank!... The middle class needs relief, tax relief: they need it now. They need help now: the focus will change with Barack Obama.

Open discussion...

Moderator: Governor, please, if you want to respond to what he said about Senator McCain's comments about health care...

Palin: I would like to respond about the tax increases: we can speak in agreement here that, darn right, we need tax relief for Americans so that jobs can be created here! Now, Barack Obama and Senator Biden also voted for the largest tax increases in U.S. history: Barack had 94 opportunities to side on the People's side and reduce taxes and 94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction- 94 times!

Now, that's not what we need to create jobs and really bolster and heat up our economy: we do need the private sector to be able to keep more of what we earn and produce. Government is going to have to learn to be more efficient and live with less, if that's what it takes to reign in the government growth that we've seen today- but we do need tax relief and Barack Obama even supported increasing taxes as late as last year for those families making only $42,000 a year: that's a lot of middle-income average American families to increase taxes on them. I think that is the way to kill jobs and to continue to harm our economy.

Biden: The charge is absolutely not true: Barack Obama did not vote to raise taxes. The vote she's referring to, John McCain voted the exact same way- it was a budget procedural vote... it did not raise taxes.

Number 2: using the standard that the Governor uses, John McCain voted 477 times to raise taxes: it's a bogus standard but, if you notice, the Governor did not answer the question about deregulation, did not answer the question of defending John McCain about not going along with the deregulation, letting Wall Street run wild: he did support deregulation almost across the board- that's why we got into so much trouble.

Palin: I'm still on the tax thing because I want to correct you on that again and I want to let you know what I did as a Mayor and as a Governor. And I may not answer the questions that either the Moderator or you want to hear but I'm going to talk straight to the American People and let them know my track record also.

As Mayor, every year I was in office I did reduce taxes: I eliminated personal property taxes and eliminated small business inventory taxes and, as Governor, we suspended our state fuel tax. We did all of those things knowing that that is how our economy would be heated up. Now, as for John McCain's adherence to rules and regulations and pushing for even harder and tougher regulations, that is another thing that he is known for though: look at the tobacco industry- look at campaign finance reform.

Scoring-- Round 2: This one was also close. Governor Palin placed most of the blame for the crisis on what she called "predator lenders"- fair enough, but she well downplayed the role that those to whom money was lent (people who should have known better than to allow themselves to go further into debt) also played: for it's not necessarily fraud if you let yourself believe that something that is simply too good to be true is, in fact, true. Biden did well in this round- not only by defending Senator Obama against the claims re: how many times he voted for tax increases, but also by pointing out that Palin did not really defend against his own charge that Senator McCain was party to the deregulation that allowed any such "predator lenders" to be so "predatory": Palin's own defense that she "may not answer the questions that either the Moderator or you want to hear" did nothing to mitigate the fact that, by so promoting her own "track record", she pretty much let almost all of what Biden said about her running mate in this round stand "as is". Biden 10, Palin 9.


ROUND 3:

Lead question asked of Senator Biden: Let's talk about taxes: you proposed raising taxes on people who earn over $250,000 a year... why is that not class warfare?

Biden responds: Where I come from, it's called fairness- just simple fairness: the middle class is struggling; the middle class under John McCain's tax proposal 100 million families- middle class families, households to be precise- they get not a single change, they get not a single break in taxes. No one making less than $250,000- under Barack Obama's plan- will see one single penny of their tax raised whether it's their capital gains tax, their income tax, investment tax, any tax and 95 percent of the people in the United States of America making less than $150,000 will get a tax break.

Now, that seems to me to be simple fairness: the economic engine of America is the middle class... when you do well, America does well, even the wealthy do well- this is not punitive. John wants to add $300 billion in new tax cuts per year for corporate America and the very wealthy while giving virtually nothing to the middle class: we have a different value set. The middle class is the economic engine- it's fair; they deserve the tax breaks, not the super wealthy who are doing pretty well- they don't need any more tax breaks and, by the way, they'll pay no more than they did under Ronald Reagan.

Palin responds: I do take issue with... that redistribution of wealth principle that seems to be espoused by you but, when you talk about Barack's plan to tax increase affecting only those making $250,000 a year or more, you're forgetting millions of small businesses that are going to fit into that category- so they're going to be the ones paying higher taxes thus resulting in fewer jobs being created and less productivity.

Now you said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying higher taxes is patriotic. In the middle class of America which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that's not patriotic: patriotic is saying 'Government, you know, you're not always the solution- in fact, too often you're the problem- so, Government, lessen the tax burden on our families and get out of the way and let the private sector and our families grow and thrive and prosper'. An increased tax formula that Barack Obama is proposing- in addition to nearly a trillion dollars in new spending that he's proposing- is the backwards way of trying to grow our economy.

Open discussion...

Moderator: Governor, are you interested in defending Senator McCain's health care plan?

Palin: I am because he's got a good health care plan that is detailed and I want to give you a couple details on that. He's proposing a $5,000 tax credit for families so that they can get out there and they can purchase their own health care coverage- that's a smart thing to do; that's budget neutral; that doesn't cost the government anything as opposed to Barack Obama's plan to mandate health care coverage and have a universal government-run program and, unless you're pleased with the way the Federal Government has been running anything lately, I don't think that it's going to be real pleasing for Americans to consider health care being taken over by the Feds.

But a $5,000 health care credit through our income tax, that's budget neutral- that's going to help: and he also wants to erase those artificial lines between States so that, through competition, we can cross state lines and, if there's a better plan offered somewhere else, we would be able to purchase that. So affordability and accessibility will be the keys there with that $5,000 tax credit also being offered.

Biden: I don't know where to start! We don't call a redistribution in my neighborhood- Scranton, Claymont, Wilmington: the places I grew up- to... say that not giving Exxon Mobil another $4 billion tax cut this year, as John calls for, and giving it to middle class people to be able to pay to send their kids to college: we don't call that redistribution, we call that fairness- number one. Number two fact: 95 percent of the small businesses in America, their owners make less than $250,000 a year- they would not get one single solitary penny increase in taxes, those small businesses.

Now, with regard to the health care plan: you know, it's with one hand you giveth, the other you take it. You know how John McCain pays for his $5,000 tax credit... a family will get? He taxes, as income, every one of you out there- every one of you listening- who has a health care plan through your employer. That's how he raises $3.6 trillion- taxing your health care benefit to give you a $5,000 plan, which his Web site points out will go straight to the insurance companies- and then you're going to have to replace a $12,000- that's the average cost of the plan you get through your employer: it costs $12,000- you're going to have to replace a $12,000 plan because 20 million of you are going to be dropped...

So you're going to have to replace a $12,000 plan with a $5,000 check you just give to the insurance company: I call that the 'ultimate Bridge to Nowhere'.

Scoring-- Round 3: Biden pulled this one out late. Whatever the merits of Senator Obama's tax proposals, Governor Palin did well score it as "that redistribution of wealth principle" and, seemingly, had the 10-9 in her favor after her initial response but then, in the Open Discussion segment, Palin (perhaps taking the "bait" put out there by Moderator Ifill) put forth details of Senator McCain's health care plan which- again, whatever its merits- Senator Biden was able to score even moreso (pointing out how a $5000 tax credit would have to- on average- fund $12000's worth of health care). Biden 10, Palin 9.


ROUND 4

Lead question asked of Senator Biden: Given the events of the week- the bailout plan, all of this- what promises have you and your campaigns made to the American People that you're not going to be able to keep?

Biden responds: Well, the one thing we might have to slow down is a commitment we made to double foreign assistance- we'll probably have to slow that down: we also are going to make sure that we do not go forward with the tax cut proposals of the administration- of John McCain- the existing one for people making over $250,000, which is $130 billion this year alone. We're not going to support the $300 billion tax cut that they have for corporate America and the very wealthy: we're not going to support another $4 billion tax cut for ExxonMobil...

We cannot slow up on education because that's the engine that is going to give us the economic growth and competitiveness that we need- and we are not going to slow up on the whole idea of providing for affordable health care for Americans, none of which- when we get to talk about health care- is as the Governor characterized. The bottom line here is that we are going to, in fact, eliminate the wasteful spending that exists in the budget right now- a number of things I don't have time, because the light is blinking, that I won't be able to mention, but one of which is the $100 billion tax dodge that, in fact, allows people to take their post office box offshore and avoid taxes. I call that unpatriotic: that's what I'm talking about.

Palin responds: Well, the nice thing about running with John McCain is, I can assure you, he doesn't tell one thing to one group and then turns around and tells something else to another group- including his plans that will make this bailout plan, this rescue plan, even better. I want to go back to the energy plan, though, because this is an important one that Barack Obama voted for in '05. Senator Biden, you would remember that- in that energy plan that Obama voted for- that's what gave those oil companies those big tax breaks: your running mate voted for that.

You know what I had to do in the State of Alaska? I had to take on those oil companies and tell them, 'No, you know, any of the greed there that has been kind of instrumental, I guess, in their mode of operation, that wasn't going to happen in my State' and that's why Tillerson at Exxon and Mulva at ConocoPhillips- bless their hearts, they're doing what they need to do, as corporate CEOs- but they're not my biggest fans because what I had to do up there in Alaska was to break up a monopoly up there and say 'you know, the People are going to come first and we're going to make sure that we have value given to the people of Alaska with those resources' and those huge tax breaks aren't coming to the big multinational corporations anymore, not when it adversely affects the people who live in a State- and, in this case, in a country- who should be benefiting at the same time.

So it was Barack Obama who voted for that energy plan that gave those tax breaks to the oil companies that I then had to turn around, as a Governor of an energy-producing State, and kind of undo in my own area of expertise, and that's energy.

Open discussion...

Moderator: So, Governor- as Vice President, there's nothing that you have promised as a candidate that you wouldn't take off the table because of this financial crisis we're in?

Palin: There is not and how long have I been at this, like five weeks? So there hasn't been a whole lot that I've promised, except to do what is right for the American People, put Government back on the side of the American People, stop the greed and corruption on Wall Street. And the rescue plan has got to include that massive oversight that Americans are expecting and deserving and I don't believe that John McCain has made any promise that he would not be able to keep, either.

Biden: Let's talk about those tax breaks: Barack Obama voted for an energy bill because, for the first time, it had real support for alternative energy- when there were separate votes on eliminating the tax breaks for the oil companies, Barack Obama voted to eliminate them; John did not. And let me just ask a rhetorical question: if John really wanted to eliminate them, why is he adding to his budget an additional $4 billion in tax cuts for ExxonMobils of the world that, in fact, already have made $600 billion since 2001?

And, look, I agree with the Governor: she imposed a windfall profits tax up there in Alaska- that's what Barack Obama and I want to do. We want to be able to do for all of you Americans- give you back 1,000 bucks- like she's been able to give back money to her folks back there- but John McCain will not support a windfall profits tax. They've made $600 billion since 2001, and John McCain wants to give them, all by itself- separate, no additional bill: all by itself- another $4 billion tax cut: if that is not proof of what I say, I'm not sure what can be. So I hope the Governor is able to convince John McCain to support our windfall profits tax, which she supported in Alaska, and I give her credit for it.

Scoring-- Round 4: Senator Biden at least attempted to realistically answer the question- at least at first, before then descending into a partisan litany of all the things Obama/Biden would not do re: what the McCain/Palin ticket has proposed. Governor Palin then defended her ticket nicely by pushing her claim that Senator Obama was, in many ways, just as responsible for tax breaks for "big oil" (contrasting it with her own record on that issue) but, as a result, she never really answered the original question; when Moderator Ifill tried to bring her around to so answering it, Palin then suggested that there would be nothing at all in McCain/Palin's own proposals that would have to be "slowed down" (to use Biden's phraseology) as a result of the money being shelled out in the Financial Rescue Plan (a position that seems altogether unrealistic). Biden, thus, was able to close out the Open Discussion by defending well against Palin's claims as regarded Obama's voting for tax breaks for oil companies, which gave him the round. True-- Biden's answer to the original question was itself rather lame, but at least he had an answer! Biden 10, Palin 9.


ROUND 5

Lead question asked of Governor Palin: Last year, Congress passed a bill that would make it more difficult for debt-strapped mortgage holders to declare bankruptcy, to get out from under that debt- this is something that John McCain supported: would you have?

Palin responds: Yes, I would have but here, again, there have been so many changes in the conditions of our economy in just even these past weeks that there has been more and more revelation made aware now to Americans about the corruption and the greed on Wall Street. We need to look back, even two years ago, and we need to be appreciative of John McCain's call for reform with Fannie Mae, with Freddie Mac, with the mortgage-lenders, too, who were starting to really kind of rear that head of abuse.

And the colleagues in the Senate weren't going to go there with him: so we have John McCain to thank for at least warning people and we also have John McCain to thank for bringing, in a bipartisan effort, people to the table so that we can start putting politics aside- even putting a campaign aside- and just do what's right to fix this economic problem that we are in.

It is a crisis: it's a toxic mess, really, on Main Street that's affecting Wall Street and now we have to be ever vigilant and also making sure that credit markets don't seize up- that's where the Main Streeters like me, that's where we would really feel the effects.

Moderator: Senator Biden, you voted for this bankruptcy bill; Senator Obama voted against it: some people have said that mortgage holders really paid the price.

Biden responds: Well, mortgage holders didn't pay the price: only 10 percent of the people who have been affected by this whole switch from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13- it gets complicated, but the point is this: Barack Obama saw the glass as half- empty, I saw it as half-full: we disagreed on that and 85 Senators voted one way and 15 voted the other way. But here's the deal: Barack Obama pointed out two years ago that there was a subprime mortgage crisis and wrote to the Secretary of the Treasury- and he said 'you'd better get on the stick here, you'd better look at it'. John McCain said as early as last December, quote- I'm paraphrasing- 'I'm surprised about this subprime mortgage crisis': number one.

Number two: with regard to bankruptcy now, what we should be doing now- and Barack Obama and I support it- we should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to readjust, not just the interest rate you're paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but be able to adjust the principal that you owe: that would keep people in their homes, actually help banks by keeping them from going under. But John McCain, as I understand it- I'm not sure of this, but I believe- John McCain and the Governor don't support that. There are ways to help people now and the ways that we're offering are not being supported by the Bush Administration nor, do I believe, by John McCain and Governor Palin.

Open discussion...

Moderator: Governor Palin, is that so?

Palin: That is not so- but, because that's just a quick answer, I want to talk about- again- my record on energy versus your ticket's energy policy also: I think that this is important to come back to, with that energy policy plan again that was voted for in '05.

When we talk about energy, we have to consider the need to do all that we can to allow this Nation to become energy independent- it's a nonsensical position that we are in when we have domestic supplies of energy all over this great land and East Coast politicians who don't allow energy-producing States like Alaska to produce these- to tap into them- and instead we're relying on foreign countries to produce for us. We're circulating about $700 billion a year into foreign countries, some who do not like America- they certainly don't have our best interests at heart!- instead of those dollars circulating here, creating tens of thousands of jobs, and allowing domestic supplies of energy to be tapped into and start flowing into these very, very hungry markets.

Energy Independence is the key to this Nation's future, to our economic future and to our national security: so when we talk about energy plans, it's not just about who got a tax break and who didn't- and we're not giving oil companies tax breaks- but it's about a heck of a lot more than that. Energy Independence is the key to America's future.

Scoring-- Round 5: This seemed, at first, a chance for Senator Biden to begin to really pull away from Governor Palin (after all, he had just won the last three rounds in a row). Governor Palin said she would have voted for so-called Bankruptcy Reform but didn't at all explain why, instead falling into reiterating her claims about "corruption and greed on Wall Street" instead of better addressing an important aspect of Debtor-Creditor Law that has a potentially adverse effect on Main Street as well. Biden, however, failed to immediately take advantage: in addition, he "quoted" a paraphrase of McCain's position (if it's a paraphrase, it's not a quote!) and then stumbled a bit when he said "John McCain, as I understand it- I'm not sure of this, but I believe- John McCain and the Governor don't support that" (if you're not sure of something, but merely believe it to be true, it is not at all something of which you can say- with anything approaching certitude- 'as I understand it'!). Palin picked up the victory in this round by being able to turn her final comments into an outline of her ticket's Energy Policy (since Biden had been less than specific in his own scoring of McCain, Palin was able to get away with her "quick answer"- "That is not so"- without having to be more specific in her own right). Palin 10, Biden 9.


ROUND 6

Lead question asked of Governor Palin: Let's talk about climate change: what is true and what is false about what we have heard, read, discussed, debated about the causes of climate change?

Palin responds: Well, as the Nation's only Arctic State and being the Governor of that State, Alaska feels and sees impacts of climate change more so than any other State and we know that it's real. I'm not one to attribute activity of man to the changes in the climate- there is something to be said also for man's activities but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet- but there are real changes going on in our climate and I don't want to argue about the causes.

What I want to argue about is: how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts? We have got to clean up this planet, we have got to encourage other nations also to come along with us with the impacts of climate change- what we can do about that... I was the first Governor to form a climate change subcabinet to start dealing with the impacts. We've got to reduce emissions: John McCain is right there with an 'all of the above' approach to deal with climate change impacts.

We've got to become energy independent for that reason: also, as we rely more and more on other countries that don't care as much about the climate as we do, we're allowing them to produce and to emit and even pollute more than America would ever stand for. So, even in dealing with climate change, it's all the more reason that we have an 'all of the above' approach- tapping into alternative sources of energy and conserving fuel, conserving our petroleum products and our hydrocarbons so that we can clean up this planet and deal with climate change.

Biden responds: I think it's clearly manmade and, look, this probably explains the biggest fundamental difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and Sarah Palin and Joe Biden... if you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is: the cause is manmade- that's the cause, that's why the polar icecap is melting.

Now, let's look at the facts: we have 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, we consume 25 percent of the oil in the world. John McCain has voted 20 times in the last decade and a half against funding alternative energy sources- clean energy sources: wind, solar, biofuels- the ways in which we can stop the greenhouse gases from emitting... Barack Obama believes, by investing in clean coal and safe nuclear, we can not only create jobs in wind and solar here in the United States, we can export it. China is building one to three new coal-fired plants burning dirty coal per week: it's polluting not only the atmosphere but the west coast of the United States: we should export the technology by investing in clean coal technology.

We should be creating jobs. John McCain has voted 20 times against funding alternative energy sources and thinks, I guess, the only answer is 'drill, drill, drill'. Drill we must, but it will take 10 years for one drop of oil to come out of any of the wells that are going to begin to be drilled: in the meantime, we're all going to be in real trouble.

Open discussion...

Moderator: Let me clear something up: Senator McCain has said he supports caps on carbon emissions; Senator Obama has said he supports clean coal technology, which I don't believe you've always supported---

Biden (interrupting): I have always supported it- that's a fact!

Moderator: Well, clear it up for us, both of you...

Palin: Yes, Senator McCain does support this. The chant is 'drill, baby, drill' and that's what we hear all across this country in our rallies because people are so hungry for those domestic sources of energy to be tapped into. They know that, even in my own energy-producing State, we have billions of barrels of oil and hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of clean, green natural gas and we're building a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline which is North America's largest and most expensive infrastructure project ever to flow those sources of energy into hungry markets.

Barack Obama and Senator Biden, you've said 'no' to everything in trying to find a domestic solution to the energy crisis that we're in. You even called drilling- safe, environmentally friendly, drilling offshore- as raping the outer continental shelf. There- with new technology, with tiny footprints even on land- it is safe to drill and we need to do more of that but, also in that 'all of the above' approach that Senator McCain supports, the alternative fuels will be tapped into: the nuclear, the clean coal. I was surprised to hear you mention that, because you had said that there isn't such a thing as clean coal and I think you said it in a rope line, too, at one of your rallies.

Moderator (to Governor Palin): Do you support capping carbon emissions?

Palin: I do, I do.

Moderator (to Senator Biden): And on the clean coal issue?

Biden: Absolutely- absolutely we do: we call for setting hard targets, number one... on clean coal, my record- just take a look at the record- my record, for 25 years, has supported clean coal technology. A comment made in a rope line was taken out of context: I was talking about exporting that technology to China so, when they burn their dirty coal, it won't be as dirty- it will be clean.

But here's the bottom line: how do we deal with global warming with continued addition to carbon emissions? And, if the only answer you have is oil, and John- and the Governor says John is for everything- well, why did John vote 20 times? Maybe he's for everything as long as it's not helped forward by the government; maybe he's for everything if the free market takes care of it: I don't know- but he voted 20 times against funding alternative energy sources.

Scoring-- Round 6: Where Governor Palin didn't want to argue about the causes of climate change, Senator Biden scored well by, early on, pointing out that understanding causes better allows one to then mitigate their effects. Palin- in her defense of that concept known as "drill, baby, drill"- utterly failed to parry Biden's point that no new oil will come out of any new drilling sites for the better part of a decade (in other words, those "so hungry for those domestic sources of energy"- as Palin herself put it- will be hungry still for a significant time to come!). In addition, Palin failed to deflect Biden's claims that McCain has consistently voted against alternative energy (if this is not at all true, she nevertheless allowed Biden to reiterate it- without it having been challenged by her beforehand- at the close of the round). In addition, even considering Obama/Biden's opposition to domestic drilling per se, surely the Democratic ticket has not been opposed to "everything in trying to find a domestic solution to the energy crisis that we're in"! A rather bad round for the Alaska Governor. Biden 10, Palin 8.


ROUND 7

Lead question asked of Senator Biden: Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting benefits to same-sex couples?

Biden responds: Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely; positively. Look, in an Obama/Biden Administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple. The fact of the matter is that, under the Constitution, same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera: that's only fair. It's what the Constitution calls for and so we do support it...

Moderator: Governor, would you support expanding that beyond Alaska to the rest of the Nation?

Palin responds: Well, not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman and, unfortunately, that's sometimes where those steps lead- but I also want to clarify, if there's any kind of suggestion at all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves, you know, I am tolerant and I have a very diverse family and group of friends and even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some very dear friends who don't agree with me on this issue.

But in that tolerance also, no one would ever propose- not in a McCain/Palin Administration- to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed and negotiated between parties- but I will tell Americans, straight up, that I don't support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman and I think, through nuances, we can go round and round about what that actually means. But I'm being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non-support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage.

Moderator: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support Gay Marriage?

Biden: No: neither Barack Obama nor I support redefining, from a civil side, what constitutes marriage- we do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination of what you call it. The bottom line though is- and I'm glad to hear the Governor; I take her at her word, obviously- that she thinks there should be no civil rights distinction- none whatsoever- between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.

Moderator: Is that what you said?

Palin: Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.

Moderator: Wonderful. You agree!

Scoring-- Round 7: The issue of legalized Gay Marriage- or some variant thereof- seems to always come up much more to the fore in these vice-presidential debates than in the presidential ones. It came up "big time" in the Cheney-Lieberman debate back in 2000 and especially in the Cheney-Edwards one four years later (with its own rather bizarre political after-effects [Lynn Cheney ripping John Kerry for something John Edwards brought up]) and, in the main, neither Party's ticket comes off as having anything approaching common sense while attempting to address- yet, at the same time, skirt this admittedly rather thorny issue-- so it was to be during this debate. Biden forcefully declaimed, in his initial response, that "in an Obama/Biden Administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple" but then, in the Open Discussion period, just as forcefully declaimed that "neither Barack Obama nor I support redefining, from a civil side, what constitutes marriage- we do not support that" (which, of course, means that Obama/Biden must, therefore, actually support that very "distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple"!-- not to also mention that legally a same-sex couple would not- even under a potential Obama/Biden Administration- "be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination of what you call it" [you can call it 'Marriage' till the cows come home, but it isn't at all Marriage if Law does not so recognize it]). Governor Palin was at least far more consistent: right from the get-go, she firmly stated she was opposed to anything that "goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman", though she made it clear that this should not be at all construed as intolerance. Once again, each side tried to do their usual "dance" around this particular "hot potato" and neither looked particularly good while doing so-- but the round went to Palin (because no one would at all expect a political conservative such as Governor Palin to, in any event, at all embrace the concept of legal Gay Marriage; while even moderate Democrats like Joe Biden- let alone liberal Democrats such as Barack Obama- seem altogether ungainly when they try to so cram such conservative legalism with their "more usual" sociocultural philosophy... kind of like wearing a Hawaiian shirt to a funeral!). Palin 10, Biden 9.


ROUND 8

Lead question asked of Governor Palin: You both have sons who are in Iraq or on their way to Iraq. You, Governor Palin, have said that you would like to see a real clear plan for an exit strategy. What should that be, Governor?

Palin responds: I am very thankful that we do have a good plan and the surge and the counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq that has proven to work: I am thankful that that is part of the plan implemented under a great American hero, General Petraeus, and pushed hard by another great American, Senator John McCain. I know that the other ticket opposed this surge- in fact, even opposed funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; Barack Obama voted against funding troops there after promising that he would not do so. And, Senator Biden, I respected you when you called him out on that: you said that his vote was political and you said it would cost lives- and Barack Obama at first said he would not do that: he turned around under political pressure and he voted against funding the troops.

We do have a plan for withdrawal: we don't need early withdrawal out of Iraq; we cannot afford to lose there or we're going to be no better off in the war in Afghanistan either. We have got to win in Iraq and, with the surge that has worked, we're now down to pre-surge numbers in Iraq... We can start putting more troops in Afghanistan as we also work with our NATO allies who are there strengthening us and we need to grow our military: we cannot afford to lose against al-Qa'eda and the Shi'a extremists who are still there- still fighting us- but we're getting closer and closer to victory and it would be a travesty if we quit now in Iraq.

Biden responds: With all due respect, I didn't hear a plan. Barack Obama offered a clear plan: shift responsibility to Iraqis over the next 16 months, draw down our combat troops- ironically, the same plan that Maliki, the Prime Minister of Iraq, and George Bush are now negotiating. The only odd man out here- the only one left out- is John McCain, number one.

Number two, with regard to Barack Obama not quote "funding the troops": John McCain voted the exact same way; John McCain voted against funding the troops because of an amendment he voted against had a timeline in it to draw down American troops and John said 'I'm not going to fund the troops if in fact there's a timeline'. Barack Obama and I agree fully and completely on one thing: you've got to have a timeline to draw down the troops and shift responsibility to the Iraqis.

We're spending $10 billion a month while Iraqis have an $80 billion surplus; Barack says it's time for them to spend their own money and have the 400,000 military we trained for them begin to take their own responsibility and gradually, over 16 months, withdrawal... For John McCain, there's no end in sight to end this war- a fundamental difference. We will end this war!

Open discussion...

Palin: Your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq and that is not what our troops need to hear today, that's for sure- and it's not what our Nation needs to be able to count on. You guys opposed the surge: the surge worked- Barack Obama still can't admit the surge works. We'll know when we're finished in Iraq when the Iraqi government can govern its people and when the Iraqi security forces can secure its people- and our commanders on the ground will tell us when those conditions have been met and Maliki and Talabani also, in working with us, are knowing again that we are getting closer and closer to that point- that victory that's within sight.

Now, you said regarding Senator McCain's military policies there, Senator Biden, that you supported a lot of these things.- in fact, you said that you wanted to run, you'd be honored to run, with him on the ticket. That's an indication I think of some of the support that you had at least until you became the VP pick here. You also said that Barack Obama was not ready to be Commander-in-Chief and I know, again, that you opposed the move he made to try to cut off funding for the troops and I respect you for that.

I don't know how you can defend that position now but I know that you know- especially with your son in the National Guard- and I have great respect for your family also and the honor that you show our military. Barack Obama though, another story there: anyone, I think, who can cut off funding for the troops after promising not to is another story.

Biden: John McCain voted to cut off funding for the troops- let me say that again: John McCain voted against an amendment containing $1 billion- $600 million that I had gotten to get MRAPS, those things that are protecting the Governor's son and- pray God- my son and a lot of other sons and daughters- he voted against it. He voted against funding because he said the amendment had a timeline in it to end this war: he didn't like that- but let's get straight who has been right and wrong.

John McCain and Dick Cheney said- while I was saying we would not be greeted as liberators, this war would take a decade and not a day, not a week and not six months, we would not be out of there quickly- John McCain was saying the Sunnis and Shi'as got along with each other without reading the history of the last 700 years. John McCain said there would be enough oil to pay for this.

John McCain has been dead wrong: I love him; as my mother would say, God love him- but he's been dead wrong on the fundamental issues relating to the conduct of the war; Barack Obama has been right- these are the facts.

Scoring-- Round 8: Actually, a rather close round. Governor Palin well defended the surge in Iraq (and, with it, McCain's support for it); Biden never effectively addressed Palin's attacks regarding Barack Obama having opposed the surge. At the same time, Palin then muddied things a bit with her insistence that Obama consistently voted against funding the troops and Biden did well parry that charge. Biden won this round, only because he was able to at least somewhat mitigate Palin's claim that he actually once agreed with McCain (with the clear notion that he only changed his position once he was on the Democratic national ticket)-- but it could have easily gone the other way. Biden 10, Palin 9.


ROUND 9

Lead question asked of Senator Biden: What's the greater threat, a nuclear Iran or an unstable Pakistan? Explain why.

Biden responds: Well, they're both extremely dangerous... I have been focusing on for a long time, along with Barack, on Pakistan: Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, Pakistan already has deployed nuclear weapons, Pakistan's weapons can already hit Israel and the Mediterranean. Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be very, very destabilizing: they are not close to getting a nuclear weapon that's able to be deployed. So they're both very dangerous; they both would be game-changers.

But look, here's what the fundamental problem I have with John's policy about terror instability: John continues to tell us that the central war in the front on terror is in Iraq. I promise you, if an attack comes in the homeland, it's going to come- as our security services have said- it is going to come from al-Qa'eda planning in the hills of Afghanistan and Pakistan- that's where they live; that's where they are, that's where it will come from and, right now, that resides in Pakistan.

A stable government needs to be established: we need to support that democracy by helping them, not only with their military, but with their governance and their economic well-being... We should be helping them build schools to compete for those hearts and minds of the people in the region so that we're actually able to take on terrorism and, by the way, that's where bin Laden lives and we will go at him if we have actually intelligence.

Palin responds: Both are extremely dangerous, of course and, as for who coined that central war on terror being in Iraq, it was General Petraeus and al-Qa'eda- both leaders there and it's probably the only thing that they're ever going to agree on- but that it was: a central war on terror is in Iraq. You don't have to believe me or John McCain on that: I would believe Petraeus and the leader of al-Qa'eda. An armed, nuclear armed- especially Iran- is so extremely dangerous to consider: they cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, period!

Israel is in jeopardy, of course, when we're dealing with Ahmadinejad as a leader of Iran claiming that Israel- as he termed it- "a stinking corpse", a country that should be wiped off the face of the earth. Now a leader like Ahmadinejad, who is not sane or stable when he says things like that, is not one whom we can allow to acquire nuclear energy, nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, the Castro brothers, others who are dangerous dictators, are ones that Barack Obama has said he would be willing to meet with without preconditions being met first.

And an issue like that taken up by a presidential candidate goes beyond naivete and goes beyond poor judgment: a statement that he made like that is downright dangerous because leaders like Ahmadinejad, who would seek to acquire nuclear weapons and wipe off the face of the earth an ally like we have in Israel, should not be met with without preconditions and diplomatic efforts being undertaken first.

Moderator: I want you both to respond to this: Secretaries of State Baker, Kissinger, Powell- they have all advocated some level of engagement with enemies: do you think these former Secretaries of State are wrong on that?

Palin: No- and Dr. Henry Kissinger especially: I had a good conversation with him recently and he shared with me his passion for diplomacy- and that's what John McCain and I would engage in also. But, again, with some of these dictators who hate America and hate what we stand for- with our freedoms, our democracy, our tolerance, our respect for women's rights- those who would try to destroy what we stand for cannot be met with just sitting down on a presidential level as Barack Obama had said he would be willing to do: that is beyond bad judgment; that is dangerous. No, diplomacy is very important- first and foremost, that is what we would engage in- but diplomacy is hard work by serious people: it's lining out clear objectives and having your friends and your allies ready to back you up there and have sanctions lined up before any kind of presidential summit would take place.

Biden: This is simply not true about Barack Obama: he did not say sit down with Ahmadinejad. The fact of the matter is, it surprises me that Senator McCain doesn't realize that Ahmadinejad does not control the security apparatus in Iran- the Theocracy controls the security apparatus, number one. Number two, five Secretaries of State did say we should talk with him and sit down.

Now, John and Governor Palin now say they have a passion- I think the phrase was- a passion for diplomacy and that we have to bring our friends and allies along. Our friends and allies have been saying, 'sit down: talk; talk; talk'. Our friends and allies have been saying that- five Secretaries of State, three of them Republicans and John McCain has said he would go along with an agreement, but he wouldn't sit down.

Now, how do you do that when you don't have your Administration sit down and talk with the adversary? And look what President Bush did: after five years, he finally sent a high-ranking diplomat to meet with the highest-ranking diplomats in Iran, in Europe, to try to work out an arrangement. Our allies are on that same page and, if we don't go the extra mile on diplomacy, what makes you think the allies are going to sit with us? The last point I'll make: John McCain said as recently as a couple of weeks ago he wouldn't even sit down with the government of Spain, a NATO ally that has troops in Afghanistan with us now- I find that incredible.

Scoring-- Round 9: This one was a very tough one to score. As was the case with the first presidential debate when this very same topic was addressed, there is a fundamental clash of philosophies: one that says "never dine with the devil" (McCain/Palin), another that says "it's OK, so long as you bring your longest spoon" (Obama/Biden). The winner of this round might best be described as the candidate one might agree with more in this regard. But- alas!- an outright winner must be called in 'Ten Point Must' (hence the name). Palin lost this one because of her own comment that "diplomacy is hard work by serious people" (methinks the lady doth protest too much-- or, in this case, was trying much too hard to paint Obama as naive and inexperienced when it comes to Foreign Policy [for it is one thing to claim that a political opponent is mistaken-- it is quite another to portray that same opponent as, somehow, lacking in all due seriousness]); Biden, meanwhile, was able to close out this round with a spirited defense of Obama's position, whatever its actual merits. Biden 10, Palin 9.


ROUND 10

Lead question asked of Governor Palin: What has this Administration done right or wrong- this is the great, lingering, unresolved issue: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict- what have they done? And is a two-state solution the solution?

Palin responds: A two-state solution is the solution and Secretary Rice, having recently met with leaders on one side or the other there, also- still in these waning days of the Bush Administration- trying to forge that peace, and that needs to be done and that will be a 'top of the agenda' item, also, under a McCain/Palin Administration. Israel is our strongest and best ally in the Middle East: we have got to assure them that we will never allow a second Holocaust- despite, again, warnings from Iran and any other country that would seek to destroy Israel- that that is what they would like to see.

We will support Israel: a two-state solution; building our embassy, also, in Jerusalem: those things that we look forward to being able to accomplish with this peace-seeking nation- and they have a track record of being able to forge these peace agreements. They succeeded with Jordan, they succeeded with Egypt: I'm sure that we're going to see more success there, also. It's got to be a commitment of the United States of America, though- and I can promise you, in a McCain/Palin Administration, that commitment is there to work with our friends in Israel.

Biden responds: No one in the United States Senate has been a better friend to Israel than Joe Biden: I would have never, ever joined this ticket were I not absolutely sure Barack Obama shared my passion- but you asked a question about whether or not this Administration's policy had made sense or something to that effect. It has been an abject failure, this Administration's policy: in fairness to Secretary Rice, she's trying to turn it around now in the seventh or eighth year.

Here's what the President said when we said no: he insisted on elections on the West Bank when I said- and others said and Barack Obama said- 'Big mistake: Hamas will win; you'll legitimize them'. What happened? Hamas won! When we kicked- along with France, we kicked- Hizbollah out of Lebanon, I said- and Barack said- 'Move NATO forces in there; fill the vacuum because, if you don't, Hizbollah will control it'. Now what's happened? Hizbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel!

The fact of the matter is: the policy of this Administration has been an abject failure- and, speaking of Freedom being on the march, the only thing on the march is Iran: it's closer to a bomb, its proxies now have a major stake in Lebanon as well as in the Gaza Strip with Hamas. We will change this policy with thoughtful, real, live diplomacy that understands that you must back Israel in letting them negotiate, support their negotiation and stand with them- not insist on policies like this Administration has.

Open discussion...

Moderator: Has this Administration's policy been an abject failure, as the Senator says, Governor?

Palin: No, I do not believe that it has been- but I'm so encouraged to know that we both love Israel and I think that is a good thing to get to agree on, Senator Biden: I respect your position on that. No, in fact, when we talk about the Bush Administration, there's a time, too, when Americans are going to say, 'Enough is enough' with your ticket constantly looking backwards and pointing fingers and doing the 'blame game'.

There have been huge blunders in the war: there have been huge blunders throughout this Administration, as there are with every Administration- but, for a ticket that wants to talk about change and looking into the future, there's just too much finger-pointing backwards to ever make us believe that that's where you're going. Positive change is coming, though: reform of government is coming; we'll learn from the past mistakes in this Administration and other Administrations- and we're going to forge ahead with putting government back on the side of the People and making sure that our country comes first, putting obsessive partisanship aside.

That's what John McCain has been known for in all these years: he has been the maverick; he has ruffled feathers. But I know, Senator Biden, you have respected him for them that and I respect you for acknowledging that- but change is coming.

Moderator: Just looking backwards, Senator?

Biden: Look, past is prologue... The issue is: how different is John McCain's policy going to be than George Bush's? I haven't heard anything yet: I haven't heard how his policy is going to be different on Iran than George Bush's; I haven't heard how his policy is going to be different with Israel than George Bush's; I haven't heard how his policy in Afghanistan is going to be different than George Bush's; I haven't heard how his policy in Pakistan is going to be different than George Bush's. It may be- but, so far, it is the same as George Bush's and you know where that policy has taken us. We will make significant change so, once again, we're the most respected nation in the world. That's what we're going to do.

Scoring-- Round 10: As was the case with Republican John McCain in the first presidential debate, here it was Democrat Joe Biden who had the proverbial "upper hand" when it comes to command of Foreign Policy issues. Governor Palin's comments in this round were a tad too platitudinous- especially as regards support of Israel (which neither ticket fails to do); Biden, meanwhile, was the more specific in his pointing out various and sundry pitfalls of Bush Administration policy as regards the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Palin didn't do at all that badly in this round (much like Obama in the first presidential debate, she generally held her own)- and even got in a 'dig' at Obama/Biden re: its being "a ticket that wants to talk about change and looking into the future" while "there's just too much finger-pointing backwards to ever make us believe that that's where you're going" but Biden well parried that particular thrust with his pointing out that Palin had failed to specifically indicate where the GOP ticket would, in fact, differ with the current Bush Administration on this issue. Biden 10, Palin 9.


ROUND 11

Lead question asked of Governor Palin: What should be the trigger- or should there be a trigger- when nuclear weapons use is ever put into play?

Palin responds: Nuclear weaponry, of course, would be the be all/end all of just too many people in too many parts of our planet: so those dangerous regimes, again, cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons- period. Our nuclear weaponry here in the U.S. is used as a deterrent and that's a safe, stable way to use nuclear weaponry, but for those countries- North Korea, also, under Kim Jong Il- we have got to make sure that we're putting the economic sanctions on these countries and that we have friends and allies supporting us in this to make sure that leaders like Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad are not allowed to acquire, to proliferate, or to use those nuclear weapons- it is that important...

I'd like to just really quickly mention there, too, that- when you look back and you say that the Bush Administration's policy on Afghanistan perhaps would be the same as McCain's- that's not accurate. The surge principles- not the exact strategy, but the surge principles- that have worked in Iraq need to be implemented in Afghanistan also and that, perhaps, would be a difference with the Bush Administration. Now, Barack Obama had said that all we're doing in Afghanistan is air-raiding villages and killing civilians and such a reckless, reckless comment- and untrue comment- again, hurts our cause.

That's not what we're doing there: we're fighting terrorists and we're securing democracy and we're building schools for children there so that there is opportunity in that country also. There will be a big difference there, and we will win in Afghanistan also.

Biden responds: With Afghanistan, facts matter... the fact is that our commanding general in Afghanistan said today that the surge principles used in Iraq- let me say this again now- our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan: not Joe Biden, our commanding general in Afghanistan. He said we need more troops, we need government-building, we need to spend more money on the infrastructure in Afghanistan. Look, we spend more money in 3 weeks on combat in Iraq than we spent on the entirety of the last 7 years that we have been in Afghanistan building that country- let me say that again: three weeks in Iraq, seven years- or, rather, 6 1/2 years- in Afghanistan- now, that's number one.

Number two, with regard to arms control and weapons: nuclear weapons require a nuclear arms control regime. John McCain voted against a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that every Republican has supported: John McCain has opposed amending the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with an amendment to allow for inspections. John McCain has not been the kind of supporter for dealing with-- let me put it another way, my time is almost up:

Barack Obama: first thing he did when he came to the United States Senate- a new Senator- reached across the aisle to my colleague- Dick Lugar, a Republican- and said 'we've got to do something about keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists'. They put together a piece of legislation that, in fact, was serious and real: every major- I shouldn't say every- on the two at least that I named, I know that John McCain has been opposed to extending the arms control regime in the world.

Palin: Well, first, McClennan did not say definitively the surge principles would not work in Afghanistan: certainly- accounting for different conditions in that different country and conditions are certainly different: we have NATO allies helping us for one and even the geographic differences are huge- the counterinsurgency principles could work in Afghanistan: McClennan didn't say anything opposite of that. The counterinsurgency strategy going into Afghanistan- clearing, holding, rebuilding the civil society and the infrastructure- can work in Afghanistan and those leaders who are over there, who have also been advising George Bush on this, have not said anything different but that.

Biden: Well, our commanding general did say that: the fact of the matter is that- again, I'll just put in perspective- while Barack and I and Chuck Hagel and Dick Lugar have been calling for more money to help in Afghanistan, more troops in Afghanistan- John McCain was saying two years ago quote, 'The reason we don't read about Afghanistan anymore in the paper, it's succeeded'; Barack Obama was saying we need more troops there.

Again, we spend in three weeks on combat missions in Iraq, more than we spent in the entire time we have been in Afghanistan: that will change in a Barack Obama Administration.

Scoring-- Round 11: This was a rather confusing round. Senator Biden addressed the issue of nuclear weaponry slightly better than Governor Palin (who, at the very start, turned a question that was, essentially, 'when might a President of the United States actually have to consider using nuclear weapons?' into an answer about arms control- that is, why other countries shouldn't be allowed to use them)-- but, in truth, neither candidate actually answered the original question. Biden, though, then allowed Palin to turn the round into a discussion about policy in Afghanistan (by having to defend against her claims about his running mate's comments on the war in that country) and, further, didn't at all make clear how "Barack Obama... saying we need more troops there" was at all different from those very "surge principles" Palin was arguing should be applied in Afghanistan (isn't a "surge"- in and of itself- an increase in troop levels?). Since Palin so well put Biden on the defensive in this round: Palin 10, Biden 9.


ROUND 12

Lead question asked of Senator Biden: Senator, you have quite a record... of being an interventionist: you argued for intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo, initially in Iraq and Pakistan, and now in Darfur- putting U.S. troops on the ground, boots on the ground. Is this something the American public has the stomach for?

Biden responds: I think the American public has the stomach for success. My recommendations on Bosnia- I admit I was the first one to recommend it- they saved tens of thousands of lives and, initially, John McCain opposed it along with a lot of other people- but the end result was it worked. Look what we did in Bosnia: we took Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks being told by everyone- I was told by everyone- that this would mean that they had been killing each other for a thousand years, it would never work. There's a relatively stable government there now as in Kosovo.

With regard to Iraq, I indicated it would be a mistake. I gave the president the power: I voted for the power because he said he needed it, not to go to war, but to keep the United States and the UN in line, to keep sanctions on Iraq and not let them be lifted. I- along with Dick Lugar- before we went to war said- if we were to go to war without our allies, without the kind of support we need- we'd be there for a decade and it'd cost us tens of billions of dollars: John McCain said 'no, it was going to be OK'.

I don't have the stomach for genocide when it comes to Darfur: we can now impose a no-fly zone- it's within our capacity. We can lead NATO if we're willing to take a hard stand- we can. I've been in those camps in Chad, I've seen the suffering- thousands and tens of thousands have died and are dying: we should rally the World to act and demonstrate it by our own movement to provide the helicopters to get the 21,000 forces of the African Union in there now to stop this genocide.

Palin responds: It's so obvious I'm a Washington outsider and someone just not used to the way you guys operate, because here you voted for the war and now you oppose the war. You're one who says- as so many politicians do- I was for it before I was against it or vice versa. Americans are craving that straight talk and just want to know 'hey, if you voted for it, tell us why you voted for it'.

And it was a war resolution and you had supported John McCain's military strategies pretty adamantly until this race- and you had opposed very adamantly Barack Obama's military strategy, including cutting off funding for the troops... all through the Primaries. And I watched those debates, so I remember what those were all about.

But, as for as Darfur, we can agree on that also: the support of the no-fly zone, making sure that all options are on the table there also. America is in a position to help: what I've done in my position to help, as the Governor of a State that's pretty rich in natural resources- we have a $40 billion investment fund, a savings fund called the Alaska Permanent Fund; when I and others in the Legislature found out we had some millions of dollars in Sudan, we called for divestment- through legislation- of those dollars to make sure we weren't doing anything that could be seen as condoning the activities there in Darfur. That legislation hasn't passed yet but it needs to because all of us- as individuals and as humanitarians and as elected officials- should do all we can to end those atrocities in that region of the World.

Open discussion...

Moderator: Is there a line that should be drawn about when we decide to go in?

Biden: Absolutely: there is a line that should be drawn... The line that should be drawn is whether we A. first of all have the capacity to do anything about it, number one- and, number two: certain new lines that have to be drawn internationally. When a country engages in genocide, when a country engages in harboring terrorists and will do nothing about it, at that point that country in my view- and Barack's view- forfeits their right to say you have no right to intervene at all. The truth of the matter is, though- let's go back to John McCain's strategy: I never supported John McCain's strategy on the war.

John McCain said exactly what Dick Cheney said- go back and look at Barack Obama's statements and mine... saying, if we went to war, we would not be greeted as liberator, we would have a fight between Sunni and Shi'a, we would be tied down for a decade and cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. John McCain was saying the exact opposite, John McCain was lockstep with Dick Cheney at that point how this was going to be easy: so John McCain's strategy in this war- not just whether or not to go, the actual conduct of the war- has been absolutely wrong from the outset.

Palin: I beg to disagree with you, again, here on whether you supported Barack Obama or John McCain's strategies. Here, again, you can say what you want to say a month out before people are asked to vote on this but we listened to the debates. I think, tomorrow morning, the pundits are going to start do the 'who said what at what time' and we'll have proof of some of this but, again, John McCain who knows how to win a war: he's been there and he's faced challenges and he knows what evil is and knows what it takes to overcome the challenges here with our military. He knows to learn from the mistakes and blunders we have seen in the war in Iraq especially; he will know how to implement the strategies, working with our commanders and listening to what they have to say, taking the politics out of these war issues: he'll know how to win a war.

Scoring-- Round 12: This was quite a bad round for Biden. First off, he sputtered with his trying to explain (and not all that well, mind you) how he voted to give President Bush the power to invade Iraq while still, or so I suppose from his explanation (such as it was), not really expecting the President to actually ever use that power. It was, in addition, hard to fathom how Biden's comment that "[w]hen a country engages in genocide, when a country engages in harboring terrorists and will do nothing about it, at that point that country in my view- and Barack's view- forfeits their right to say you have no right to intervene at all" was all that different from the so-called 'Bush Doctrine' of, for lack of a better term, 'unilateral pre-emptive war' that both Obama and Biden have been so roundly criticizing in this campaign. Only because, yes, she is "a Washington outsider and someone just not used to the way you guys operate": Palin 10, Biden 8.


ROUND 13

Lead question asked of Senator Biden: Probably the biggest cliche about the Vice Presidency is that it's a heartbeat away: everybody's waiting to see what would happen if the worst happened... How would a Biden Administration be different from an Obama Administration if that were to happen.

Biden responds: God forbid that would ever happen- it would be a national tragedy of historic proportions if it were to happen but, if it did, I would carry out Barack Obama's policy: his policies of reinstating the middle class, making sure they get a fair break, making sure they have access to affordable health insurance, making sure they get serious tax breaks, making sure we can help their children get to college; making sure there is an energy policy that leads us in the direction of, not only toward independence and clean environment, but an energy policy that creates 5 million new jobs; a foreign policy that ends this war in Iraq, a foreign policy that goes after the one mission the American public gave the President after 9/11 to get and capture or kill bin Laden and to eliminate al-Qa'eda, a policy that would- in fact- engage our allies in making sure that we knew we were acting on the same page and not dictating and a policy that would reject the Bush Doctrine of preemption and regime change and replace it with a doctrine of prevention and cooperation and, ladies and gentlemen, this is the biggest ticket item that we have in this election.

This is the most important election you will ever, ever have voted in- any of you- since 1932 and there's such stark differences, I would follow through on Barack's policies because, in essence, I agree with every major initiative he is suggesting.

Palin responds: And- heaven forbid, yes- that would ever happen, no matter how this ends up, that that would ever happen with either Party. As for disagreeing with John McCain and how our Administration would work, what do you expect? A team of mavericks, of course we're not going to agree on 100 percent of everything. As we discuss ANWR there, at least we can agree to disagree on that one: I will keep pushing him on ANWR; I have so appreciated he has never asked me to check my opinions at the door and he wants a deliberative debate and healthy debate so we can make good policy.

What I would do also- if that were to ever happen, though- is to continue the good work he is so committed to of putting Government back on the side of the people and get rid of the greed and corruption on Wall Street and in Washington. I think we need a little bit of reality from Wasilla Main Street there, brought to Washington, D.C.so that people there can understand how the average working class family is viewing bureaucracy in the Federal Government and Congress and inaction of Congress.

Just everyday working class Americans saying, you know, 'Government, just get out of my way: if you're going to do any harm and mandate more things on me and take more of my money in income tax and business taxes--': you're going to have a choice in just a few weeks here on either supporting a ticket that wants to create jobs and bolster our economy and win the war or you're going to be supporting a ticket that wants to increase taxes, which ultimately kills jobs and is going to hurt our economy.

Biden: Look, all you have to do is go down Union Street with me in Wilmington or go to Katie's Restaurant or walk into Home Depot with me where I spend a lot of time and you ask anybody in there whether or not the economic and foreign policy of this Administration has made them better off in the last eight years and then ask them whether there's a single major initiative that John McCain differs with the President on: on taxes, on Iraq, on Afghanistan, on the whole question of how to help education, on the dealing with health care.

Look, the people in my neighborhood, they get it... they know they've been getting the short end of the stick. So walk with me in my neighborhood: go back to my old neighborhood in Claymont, an old steel town, or go up to Scranton with me: these people know the middle class has gotten the short end; the wealthy have done very well- corporate America has been rewarded. It's time we change it: Barack Obama will change it.

Palin: Say it ain't so, Joe! There you go again pointing backwards again: you referenced your whole comment with the Bush Administration. Now, doggone it, let's look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future. You mentioned education and I'm glad you did: I know education you are passionate about- with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and God bless her: her reward is in heaven, right? I say, too- with education, America needs to be putting a lot more focus on that and our schools have got to be really ramped up in terms of the funding that they are deserving.

Teachers need to be paid more: I come from a house full of schoolteachers- my grandma was, my dad- who is in the audience today- he's a schoolteacher, had been for many years. My brother... and here's a shoutout to all those third-graders at Gladys Wood Elementary School, you get extra credit for watching the debate. Education... has been- in some sense in some of our States- just accepted to be a little bit lax and we have got to increase the standards: No Child Left Behind was implemented: It's not doing the job, though. We need flexibility in No Child Left Behind, we need to put more of an emphasis on the profession of teaching, we need to make sure that education is one of our agendas, I think, absolute top of the line. My kids as public school participants right now, it's near and dear to my heart. I'm very, very concerned about where we're going with education and we have got to ramp it up and put more attention in that arena.

Scoring-- Round 13: A tough one to score, if only because how else was each candidate expected to answer the question? Of course, they would- if sadly necessary- carry on the policies of their respective predecessor (and, if you don't believe it, you can always ask them [;-)]). Palin deftly turned the final portion of this round into an outline of her ticket's policies regarding Education (although her 'dig' at Biden for "pointing backwards again" was rather disingenuous because her own many claims that her running mate is the quintessential maverick were, themselves, a "pointing backwards" to Senator McCain's own record in public office). Still: Palin 10, Biden 9.


ROUND 14

Lead question asked of Governor Palin: You said, in July, that someone would have to explain to you exactly what it is the Vice President does every day; you, Senator, said you would not be Vice President under any circumstances. Now maybe this was just what was going on at the time but tell us now, looking forward, what it is you think the Vice Presidency is worth now.

Palin responds: In my comment there, it was a lame attempt at a joke and yours was a lame attempt at a joke, too, I guess, because nobody got it. Of course we know what a Vice President does... and that's not only to preside over the Senate and I will take that position very seriously also- I'm thinking the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the Vice President if that Vice President so chooses to exert it in working with the Senate- and making sure that we are supportive of the President's policies and making sure too that our President understands what our strengths are. John McCain and I have had good conversations about where I would lead with his agenda: that is Energy Independence in America and reform of government over all and then working with families of children with special needs- that's near and dear to my heart also. In those arenas, John McCain has already tapped me and said 'that's where I want you to lead. I said 'I can't wait to get in there go to work with you'.

Biden responds: I hope we'll get back to education because I don't know any government program that John is supporting- not early education, more money for it. The reason No Child Left Behind was left behind, the money was left behind: we didn't fund it...

With regard to the role of Vice President, I had a long talk- as I'm sure the Governor did with her principal, in my case with Barack. Let me tell you what Barack asked me to do: I have a history of getting things done in the United States Senate; John McCain would acknowledge that- my record shows that on controversial issues. I would be the point person for the legislative initiatives in the United States Congress for our Administration... when asked if I wanted a portfolio, my response was 'no'- but Barack Obama indicated to me he wanted me with him to help him govern: so every major decision he'll be making, I'll be sitting in the room to give my best advice. He's President, not me- I'll give my best advice.

And one of the things he said early on when he was choosing: he said he picked someone who had an independent judgment and wouldn't be afraid to tell him if he disagreed- that is sort of my reputation, as you know. I look forward to working with Barack and playing a very constructive role in his Presidency, bringing about the kind of change this country needs.

Open discussion...

Moderator: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the Vice President more power than it has in the past: do you believe- as Vice President Cheney does- that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the Vice-Presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?

Palin: Well, our Founding Fathers were very wise there in allowing, through the Constitution, much flexibility there in the office of the Vice President and we will do what is best for the American People in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the President's agenda in that position... so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this Nation.

And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain- not only as a Governor, but earlier on as a Mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the White House also.

Biden: Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous Vice President we've had, probably, in American History. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the Vice President of the United States- that's the Executive Branch: he works in the Executive Branch; he should understand that- everyone should understand that and the primary role of the Vice President of the United States of America is to support the President of the United States of America, give that President his or her best judgment when sought, and, as Vice President, to preside over the Senate only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote.

The Constitution is explicit: the only authority the Vice President has- from the legislative standpoint- is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress: the idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary Executive and look where it has gotten us- it has been very dangerous.

Scoring- Round 14: Although Article I of the United States Constitution involves the Legislative Branch (the Executive Branch is the subject of Article II), Senator Biden is essentially correct: the Vice President's sole relationship to the Senate over which he or she might preside is that of, yes, a presiding officer who can only vote in case of a tie-- nothing more. The very first Vice President of the United States, John Adams, attempted to assert something of an advisory role within the Senate, having one foot in the Administration and the other in the Senate itself (along the lines of a 'Deputy Governor' in a Royal Province prior to the American Revolution, an officer who was considered as much a member of what was, in essence, the upper house of a colonial legislature, as any of the 'Assistants' who made up the 'Council'), and was sharply rebuffed. And, although 19th Century political writers tended to treat of the Vice Presidency within their examinations of the Senate (see James Bryce's The American Commonwealth or Woodrow Wilson's Congressional Government), political almanacs and historical encyclopedias of the very same era already correctly considered the Vice President to be part of the Administration. Biden 10, Palin 9.


ROUND 15

Lead question asked of Governor Palin: The conventional wisdom, Governor Palin- with you- is that your Achilles Heel is that you lack experience. (to Senator Biden) The conventional wisdom against you is that your Achilles Heel is that you lack discipline... What is it really for you?...

Palin responds: My experience as an executive will be put to good use- as a Mayor and business owner and oil and gas regulator and then as Governor of a huge State, a huge energy producing State that is accounting for much progress towards getting our nation Energy Independence and that's extremely important. But it wasn't just that experience [that was] tapped into: it was my connection to the Heartland of America. Being a mom, one very concerned about a son in the war, about a special needs child, about kids heading off to college, how are we going to pay those tuition bills? About times and Todd and our marriage in our past where we didn't have health insurance and we know what other Americans are going through as they sit around the kitchen table and try to figure out how are they going to pay out-of-pocket for health care?

We've been there also so that connection was important but even more important is that world view that I share with John McCain: that world view that says that America is a nation of exceptionalism and we are to be that shining city on a hill- as President Reagan so beautifully said, that we are a beacon of hope and that we are unapologetic here. We are not perfect as a nation but, together, we represent a perfect ideal and that is democracy and tolerance and freedom and equal rights: those things that we stand for that can be put to good use as a force for good in this world. John McCain and I share that. You combine all that with being a team with the only track record of making a real difference in where we've been and reforming, that's a good team- it's a good ticket.

Biden responds: You're very kind suggesting my only Achilles Heel is my lack of discipline? Others talk about my excessive passion: I'm not going to change- I have 35 years in public office: people can judge who I am; I haven't changed in that time. And, by the way, a record of change- I will place my record and Barack's record against John McCain's or anyone else in terms of fundamental accomplishments: wrote the crime bill; put 100,000 cops on the street; wrote the Violence Against Women Act- which John McCain voted against, both of them; was the catalyst to change the circumstance in Bosnia, led by President Clinton, obviously.

Look, I understand what it's like to be a single parent: when my wife and daughter died and my two sons were gravely injured, I understand what it's like as a parent to wonder what it's like if your kid's going to make it. I understand what it's like to sit around the kitchen table with a father who says "I've got to leave, champ, because there's no jobs here. I've got to head down to Wilmington and, when we get enough money, honey, we'll bring you down". I understand what it's like.

I'm much better off than almost all Americans now: I get a good salary with the United States Senate; I live in a beautiful house that's my total investment that I have. So I am much better off now- but the notion that somehow, because I'm a man, I don't know what it's like to raise two kids alone, I don't know what it's like to have a child you're not sure is going to make it- I understand.

I understand as well as, with all due respect, the Governor- or anybody else- what it's like for those people sitting around that kitchen table and guess what? They're looking for help... they're not looking for more of the same.

Open discussion...

Palin: People aren't looking for more of the same- they are looking for change and John McCain has been the consummate maverick in the Senate over all these years. He's taken shots left and right from the other Party and from within his own Party because he's had to take on his own Party when the time was right, when he recognized it was time to put partisanship aside and just do what was right for the American People. That's what I've done as Governor, also- take on my own Party, when I had to- and work with both sides of the aisle, in my cabinet, appointing those who would serve regardless of Party: Democrats, independents, Republicans, whatever it took to get the job done.

Also, John McCain's maverick position that he's in, that's really indicated by the supporters that he has: look at Lieberman and Giuliani, and Romney and Lingle, and all of us who come from such a diverse background of policy and of partisanship- all coming together at this time, recognizing he is the man that we need to lead in these next four years because these are tumultuous times.

We have got to win the wars, we have got to get our economy back on track, we have got to not allow the greed and corruption on Wall Street anymore and we have not got to allow the partisanship that has really been entrenched in Washington, D.C.- no matter who's been in charge. When the Republicans were in charge, I didn't see a lot of progress there, either; with the Democrats, either, though, this last go-round for the last two years. Change is coming and John McCain is the leader of that reform.

Biden: Look, the maverick- let's talk about the maverick John McCain is and, again, I love him: he's been a maverick on some issues but he has been no maverick on the things that matter to people's lives. He voted four out of five times for George Bush's budget, which put us a half a trillion dollars in debt this year and over $3 trillion in debt since he's got there. He has not been a maverick in providing health care for people: he voted against including another 3.6 million children in coverage of the existing health care plan, when he voted in the United States Senate.

He's not been a maverick when it comes to education; he has not supported tax cuts and significant changes for people being able to send their kids to college; he's not been a maverick on the war; he's not been a maverick on virtually anything that genuinely affects the things that people really talk about around their kitchen table: can we get Mom's MRI? Can we send Mary back to school next semester? We can't make it: how are we going to heat the house this winter? He voted against even providing for what they call LIHEAP for assistance to people, with oil prices going through the roof in the winter. So maverick he is not on the important, critical issues that affect people at that kitchen table.

Scoring-- Round 15: Governor Palin didn't actually answer the question, preferring to deflect the notion that her alleged lack of experience was even such an "Achilles heel"; in this regard, Senator Biden was much more forthcoming: in addition, he well defended himself against any notion that he did not at all understand "kitchen table" issues as well as Palin. The fact that this round devolved into an argument over whether or not John McCain is really a maverick did not change the overall score. Biden 10, Palin 9.


ROUND 16

Lead question asked of Senator Biden: Can you think of a single issue- policy issue- in which you were forced to change a long-held view in order to accommodate changed circumstances?

Biden responds: Yes, I can: when I got to the United States Senate and went on the Judiciary Committee as a young lawyer, I was of the view- and had been trained in the view- that the only thing that mattered was whether or not a nominee appointed, suggested, by the President had a judicial temperament, had not committed a crime of moral turpitude, and had been a good student. And it didn't take me long- it was hard to change, but it didn't take me long; it took about five years- for me to realize that the ideology of that judge makes a big difference.

That's why I led the fight against Judge Bork. Had he been on the Court, I suspect there would be a lot of changes that I don't like and the American People wouldn't like, including everything from Roe v. Wade to issues relating to civil rights and Civil Liberties. And so that was one of the intellectual changes that took place in my career as I got a close look at it and that's why I was the first Chairman of the Judiciary Committee to forthrightly state that it matters what your judicial philosophy is: the American People have a right to understand it and to know it. But I did change on that, and I'm glad I did.

Palin responds: There have been times where, as Mayor and Governor, we have passed budgets that I did not veto and that I think could be considered as something that I quasi-caved in, if you will, but knowing that it was the right thing to do in order to progress the agenda for that year and to work with the legislative body- that body that actually holds the purse strings. So there were times when I wanted to zero-base budget, and to cut taxes even more, and I didn't have enough support in order to accomplish that.

But- on the major principle things- no, there hasn't been something that I've had to compromise on, because we've always seemed to find a way to work together. Up there in Alaska, what we have done is, with bipartisan efforts, is work together and, again, not caring who gets the credit for what, as we accomplish things up there and that's been just a part of the operation that I wanted to participate in. And that's what we're going to do in Washington, D.C., also, bring in both sides together. John McCain is known for doing that, also, in order to get the work done for the American People.

Open discussion...

Moderator: Let's come full circle: you both want to bring both sides together, you both talk about bipartisanship. Once again, we saw what happened this week in Washington: how do you change the tone, as Vice President, as number-two?

Biden: Well, again, I believe John McCain, were he here- and this is a dangerous thing to say in the middle of an election- but he would acknowledge what I'm about to say: I have been able to work across the aisle on some of the most controversial issues and change my Party's mind- as well as Republicans'- because I learned a lesson from Mike Mansfield. Mike Mansfield, a former leader of the Senate, said to me- one day, I made a criticism of Jesse Helms- he said, "What would you do if I told you Jesse Helms and Dot Helms had adopted a child who had braces and was in real need?" I said, "I'd feel like a jerk." He said, "Joe, understand one thing: everyone's sent here for a reason because there's something in them that their folks like: don't question their motives".

I have never- since that moment in my first year- questioned the motive of another member of the Congress or Senate with whom I've disagreed: I've questioned their judgment. I think that's why I have the respect I have and have been able to work as well as I've been able to have worked in the United States Senate: that's the fundamental change Barack Obama and I will be bring to this Party, not questioning other people's motives.

Palin: You do what I did as Governor and you appoint people regardless of Party affiliation- Democrats, Independents, Republicans: you walk the walk, you don't just talk the talk. And, even in my own family, it's a very diverse family- and we have folks of all political persuasion in there, also, so I've grown up just knowing that, you know, at the end of the day, as long as we're all working together for the greater good, it's going to be OK.

But the policies and the proposals have got to speak for themselves, also, and, again, voters on November 4th are going to have that choice to either support a ticket that supports policies that create jobs- you do that by lowering taxes on American workers and on our businesses and you build up infrastructure and you rein in government spending, and you make our nation energy independent- or you support a ticket that supports policies that will kill jobs by increasing taxes.

And what the track record shows is a desire to increase taxes, increase spending- a trillion dollar spending proposal that's on the table that's going to hurt our country- and saying no to energy independence: clear choices on November 4th.

Scoring-- Round 16: This was another close one. Each candidate addressed areas where they had to give in and abandon various and sundry political assumptions (though each clearly was, at the same time, claiming that no devotion to principle had been at all compromised): as a result, neither candidate did at all badly in this round: Palin got the last word and used it to score the Obama/Biden ticket on things that Biden would not (given that this was the final round of the debate) be able to answer in this forum. Because of this last: Palin 10, Biden 9.

It is the position of 'The Green Papers' that any Opening and Closing Statements at these Debates, being largely repetitions of the messages of each candidate's campaign and not at all responses to "off the cuff" questions for which the candidates cannot prepare in advance, are not really part of the Debate itself. Thus, the Closing Statements from each candidate are not included herein and do not factor into the

FINAL SCORE: Senator Biden- 152, Governor Palin- 151.

 

FINAL THOUGHTS:

A debate that- more than anything else- neither candidate lost. Governor Palin acquitted herself well (she had her "hiccups" throughout the proceedings, as noted above-- but, obviously, so did Senator Biden) and those who might have thought her inexperience might put her at something of a disadvantage were proven wrong; having said this, though, Senator Biden avoided saying anything that might have otherwise led to the kind of criticism then-Vice President George H.W. Bush got for allegedly "talking down" to Democratic vice-presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro (the only other woman, besides Sarah Palin, to be on a Major Party national ticket) during their debate back in 1984.

In the main, it doesn't appear that either vice-presidential candidate did their respective standard-bearer all that much political harm at all yet, at the same time and truth be told, hearts and minds likely were little changed by this particular debate... after all, as I have often written on this very website: No one actually votes for Vice-President!

 


Commentary Home